Teaching students to engage in argumentation using Reason Racer requires an understanding WHAT is involved in argumentation and HOW it has been researched and developed at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. The Reason Racer Game is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a goal of helping students acquire the skills of argumentation by playing an online game.
The Reason Race Game is based on another, previous, grant from NSF in which an instructional routine, The Argumentation and Evaluation Routine (AER), an associated graphic organizer, the Argumentation and Evaluation Guide (AEG), and an Argumentation and Evaluation Strategy (AES) were developed (Bulgren & Ellis, 2010). The evidence-based strategy, AES, serves as a foundation for the Reason Racer Game.
The following guide was reprinted with permission from copyrighted materials in the Argumentation and Evaluation Teacher's Manual (Bulgren & Ellis, 2009).
The steps of the strategy are as follows:
Consider a claim and its qualifiers.
List Evidence
Identify Types of Evidence
Evaluate Evidence
Identify Chain of Reasoning
Identify Type of Reasoning
Evaluate Chain of Reasoning
Make counterarguments, rebuttals or new questions known.
Summarize conclusions about the claim and present reasoning.
In order to help students as they engage in the Reason Racer game, it is important to understand the terminology associated with this strategy. Below are some of the critical definitions needed to get started with the game. The following are definitions of the terms found in the strategic steps above and used in the Reason Racer game:
claim - a statement that something is true; describes the relationship between two or more variables with a broad conclusion based on evidence
qualifiers - limiting factors to a claim; qualifiers narrow the focus of the claim (examples: none, sometimes, always, best)
evidence - information that supports or refutes a claim or statement
data - observable or measurable evidence gathered that supports or refutes a claim (quantitative or qualitative)
fact – a subset of data; something that is observable, measurable, or verifiable and generally agreed upon as unchanging by the scientific community.
quality - how good or bad something is in relation to supporting the claim
reliability - information is consistent (example: getting the same results each time you repeat the measurement)
validity - how well the data addresses the claim
objectivity (no apparent bias) - a personal opinion or conflict of interest does not influence the data collection or analysis
reasoning - explaining how the evidence supports or refutes a claim
authority –a person or text that is trusted based on knowledge, experience, or position
logic - the type of logical reasoning that connects evidence to a claim or statement. Types of logic include:
analogy – an assumption (inference) that what is true for one situation or event is also true for another situation or event.
correlation - the relationship in which the change in two variables is interrelated, but may not be cause-and-effect
cause-and-effect - a relationship in which one event is responsible for another happening
generalization –an assumption (inference) that if something is true for a well chosen sample, it is likely to hold for a similar larger group or population.
theory- a scientifically accepted explanation of how or why something happens based on observable data, experiments, and ideas.
counterarguments - a statement that challenges a claim; or a statement of an alternative claim based on evidence, data, theory reasoning, or new data.
rebuttals - a statement that a claim is wrong with an explanation using evidence and reasoning.
new questions- a statement suggesting other questions that should be investigated related to the claim
accept, reject or withhold judgment about the claim and providing an explanation about their decision.
accept - to believe a claim to be truth
reject - to believe a claim not to be true
withhold judgment - to decide you need more information to determine if a claim is true or not
The definitions above were included the original, more extensive instruction in argumentation, but are not exhaustive, For further information on the definitions and steps involved in the original Argumentation and Evaluation Routine, these are included below. Note that a List of Definitions by Pit Stop is also available.
In the original instruction, the following instructional supports were included for teachers regarding the steps of the strategy (instructional manual, Bulgre & Ellis, 2010).
The steps are listed here in an order that teachers have found to be effective, but the steps can be used in a different order. For example, an initial identification of a Claim in Step 1 may be revised based on reading the complete article, and the Qualifiers in Step 1 may be discovered as the reading or listening progresses. Similarly, concerns in Step 8 may be identified at any point in the evaluative process and judgments made about the worthiness of the claim are constantly revised throughout the reading (or viewing) process, particularly as class discussion progresses.
The Linking Steps of the Argumentation and Evaluation Routine (AER) are based on the Argumentation and Evaluation Guide and designed to promote as much interaction between the teacher and students as possible. The concept and process of the AEG were considered when developing Reason Race, an online game to teach the Scientific Argumentation process. The Linking Steps described below can be used to introduce your student to Scientific Argumentation.
When students’ areas of interest are used to select the claims from an article, student interest and involvement will increase. As a result of increased interest and involvement, student learning will also improve. Therefore, providing opportunities for student input on the development and revision of the Scientific Argument at every step is extremely important to assure inclusion of students’ prior knowledge and its use in the construction of understanding.
The Reason Race Game is based on another, previous, grant from NSF in which an instructional routine, The Argumentation and Evaluation Routine (AER), an associated graphic organizer, the Argumentation and Evaluation Guide (AEG), and an Argumentation and Evaluation Strategy (AES) were developed (Bulgren & Ellis, 2010). The evidence-based strategy, AES, serves as a foundation for the Reason Racer Game.
The following guide was reprinted with permission from copyrighted materials in the Argumentation and Evaluation Teacher's Manual (Bulgren & Ellis, 2009).
The steps of the strategy are as follows:
In order to help students as they engage in the Reason Racer game, it is important to understand the terminology associated with this strategy. Below are some of the critical definitions needed to get started with the game. The following are definitions of the terms found in the strategic steps above and used in the Reason Racer game:
The definitions above were included the original, more extensive instruction in argumentation, but are not exhaustive, For further information on the definitions and steps involved in the original Argumentation and Evaluation Routine, these are included below. Note that a List of Definitions by Pit Stop is also available.
In the original instruction, the following instructional supports were included for teachers regarding the steps of the strategy (instructional manual, Bulgre & Ellis, 2010).
The steps are listed here in an order that teachers have found to be effective, but the steps can be used in a different order. For example, an initial identification of a Claim in Step 1 may be revised based on reading the complete article, and the Qualifiers in Step 1 may be discovered as the reading or listening progresses. Similarly, concerns in Step 8 may be identified at any point in the evaluative process and judgments made about the worthiness of the claim are constantly revised throughout the reading (or viewing) process, particularly as class discussion progresses.
The Linking Steps of the Argumentation and Evaluation Routine (AER) are based on the Argumentation and Evaluation Guide and designed to promote as much interaction between the teacher and students as possible. The concept and process of the AEG were considered when developing Reason Race, an online game to teach the Scientific Argumentation process. The Linking Steps described below can be used to introduce your student to Scientific Argumentation.
When students’ areas of interest are used to select the claims from an article, student interest and involvement will increase. As a result of increased interest and involvement, student learning will also improve. Therefore, providing opportunities for student input on the development and revision of the Scientific Argument at every step is extremely important to assure inclusion of students’ prior knowledge and its use in the construction of understanding.
1. Consider a Claim and its Qualifiers
2. List Evidence
3. Identify Types of Evidence
4. Evaluate Evidence
5. Identify Chain of Reasoning
6. Identify Type of Reasoning
7. Evaluate Chain of Reasoning
8. Counterarguments, Rebuttals and New Questions
9. Summarize Conclusion and Present Reasoning
Reprinted with permission from copyrighted materials in the Argumentation and Evaluation Teacher's Manual (Bulgren & Ellis, 2009).